Can we go back the debates on heavier gun regulation like we did after Gifford, or does someone tremendously important actually have to die before we get the point? How it was so easy for a man to get this close to the White House and actually fire at it with an assault rifle is unbelievable and inadmissible.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Can we go back the debates on heavier gun regulation like we did after Gifford, or does someone tremendously important actually have to die before we get the point? How it was so easy for a man to get this close to the White House and actually fire at it with an assault rifle is unbelievable and inadmissible.

Obama's not even mildly important.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected? There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

illegilizing guns wont get rid of them, felons still get guns whey are not allowed, so a ban would be a waste of time. Terrorists make AK-47 in huts in the middle of nowhere, and their countries say no guns allowed. Most of the bulk market for guns in the U.S is from Europe, if illegilized bad people would still guns. Also guns lower crime.Read: http://www.justfacts.com...

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected? There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

Yes only the trustworthy and always honest and faithful United States Federal Government should have firepower, because as we all know, private gun owners kill far more people than the government.

If banning weapons in prisons works, then we should follow their example by banning guns for the public.... oh wait....

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

At 11/17/2011 9:35:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:illegilizing guns wont get rid of them, felons still get guns whey are not allowed, so a ban would be a waste of time. Terrorists make AK-47 in huts in the middle of nowhere, and their countries say no guns allowed. Most of the bulk market for guns in the U.S is from Europe, if illegilized bad people would still guns. Also guns lower crime.Read: http://www.justfacts.com...

No one asked to illegalize guns. What I said was for heavier regulation.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

I'm not going to be happy until I have within my possession an M-388 Davy Crockett.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

The second amendment debate is the largest reading comprehension debate in the nation. With simple reading comprehension and actually reading the amendment, we see what we should do.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What is a militia, a right, arms, or infringed? All f these are important and there definitions become clear from context.

Notice the appositive "being necessary to the security of a free State." It is referring to the Militia. What is the militia? Is it the national guard or armed citizens? Let's use the appositive and se if it makes sense for the national guard.

Is the national guard necessary to a free state? Notice necessary, a strong, powerful word, and the word free. (State in this means nation by the way) Without the national guard, can we still have freedoms? Yes, of course. Can we have the national guard without freedoms? Yes of course. Obviously the militia is no the national guard. Let's see if context can reveal the answer.

From reading it we can see that he militia, whatever it is, needs the right to bear arms. The right of who? The people. The national guard's existence does not depend on my or your right to own a weapon. The militia is obviously comprised of the people.

So what about infringement and arms? These two are explained simultaneously when we understand, as we do now the purpose of the amendment. The purpose is for a people militia to protect their freedoms from tyranny, from foreign or domestic oppression. This is specifically domestic as it is necessary for our freedoms. So as long as the people's militia is equipped enough to adequately defend themselves from the government then gun laws in place are okay.

Surely, our founders couldn't anticipate atomic bombs or any number of modern weapons. However, we an know that they did anticipate new weapons. They clearly stated that the people needs the weapons to defend themselves from the government.

So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected? There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

I'm pretty sure shooting at people is against the law. With that in mind, why on Earth would you believe that someone would follow the law if guns were more heavily restricted? Also, the "trivial little right" you're referring to is the most significant. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject. I don't want the government to be the only ones with weapons. Look at history, just the last century. Literally hundreds of millions dead either by the hand of their governments, or fighting for their governments.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:

At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:

One question, why should there be competition between the U.S. Military and citizens in the first place, according to this viewpoint?

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:

One question, why should there be competition between the U.S. Military and citizens in the first place, according to this viewpoint?

The argument is that governments, by nature, become corrupt and that the people are justified in overthrowing oppressed governments. If the citizens have arms to begin with, a revolution is much easier.

I doubt there is a single person in the entire United States who thinks that face to face and toe to toe the gun owners of America would have even a slight chance against the military. However, if war between an oppressive government and citizens ever erupted even small arms would help significantly as opposed to nothing at all. A .22 caliber bullet to the head can still kill quite effectively.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

No more regulation, its an infringement of my legal rights. Also more regulation means more government control which is very...bad to put it nicely. Also banning assault rifles is just dumb, my 2 AR-15's are actually similar to a ruger semi-auto .223 ranch rifle, yet those don't get restricted. The only difference for an 'assault' rifle is that it looks cool, that is the only major difference. I know more about guns then most people :) http://www.guncite.com... more info about assault weapons

At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:

One question, why should there be competition between the U.S. Military and citizens in the first place, according to this viewpoint?

Simple reading comprehension and the second amendment says it is necessary for our freedom. Not sovereignty this distinction is key to understanding.Our freedom can only be taken by those who have the power and the government has the power. Thus owning guns protects us from the government and the government controls the military.

And yes corruption of the state would lead to conflicts. Now it isn't going to be shaped up like I have it. It will be all too convincing with propaganda techniques. Sure some won't buy it and they will fight against it but the battle will be uphill without arms.

If it ever got to the point where armed citizens had to fight against a crazy government, it is likely the military would be splintered. Also, those kinds of revolutions tend to get interesting if the government cannot immediately roll the tanks over the civilians with few casualties on their side. The government knows that other countries will gladly "help" the armed citizens and take their slice of the pie afterwards. The armed militia does not need to overpower the Government Military, they just have to keep them from rolling over them.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected?

Rights and Privleges are two different things.

A right is something you are entitled to.A privilege is something you are granted.

There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

Typical left winger

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

Attempting to assassinate the president is like the United State's national sport.

*gets flagged by the FBI*

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 11/18/2011 1:19:20 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:Yes... it does. An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire settings alowing the user to choose between auto and semi-auto. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

(2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A bayonet mount;

(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) A grenade launcher; or

(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

(iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

(b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.

At 11/17/2011 9:35:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:illegilizing guns wont get rid of them, felons still get guns whey are not allowed, so a ban would be a waste of time. Terrorists make AK-47 in huts in the middle of nowhere, and their countries say no guns allowed. Most of the bulk market for guns in the U.S is from Europe, if illegilized bad people would still guns. Also guns lower crime.Read: http://www.justfacts.com...

No one asked to illegalize guns. What I said was for heavier regulation.

It's called a strawman argument.

Here's a question. Of guns used in the US for crimes, how many use assult rifles, and how many use handguns and how many use "other" (hunting rifles, shotguns, etc)?

At 11/18/2011 1:19:20 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:Yes... it does. An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire settings alowing the user to choose between auto and semi-auto. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

(2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A bayonet mount;

(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) A grenade launcher; or

(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

(iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

(b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.